jvrao commented on issue #189: BOOKKEEPER-1033: Handle DirsPartitionDuplication URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189#issuecomment-311716056 Multiple entrylog change is coming in and Charan is using this for that. So you can think of this as setting stage for that. If you don't want to have the flag/configuration parameter we can get rid of it; That is not really needed for what we need. If you feel strongly against this configuration param, we can flag a warning instead of error if user configured multiple entrylogs on same disk. Its a bit of code change and another commit not a biggie. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Sijie Guo <notificati...@github.com> wrote: > re 1. > > I am not aware if they are users configuring in this way. but I am not > sure if this is the case for flagging as error. because in current > implementation, such configuration doesn't have any performance impacts. if > this flag is necessarily for multiple entry log files, I would defer adding > this flag when reviewing the multiple-active-entry-log-files change. > because it is not very clear about the problem and benefits. > > re 2> > > this sounds like a policy problem - how to choose the directory to place > the entry log files to achieve balance between disk partitions? currently > bookie asks the ledgerdirs manager for a ledger directory. the ledger disks > can do a better job for balancing the placement of entry log files. > > re 3. > > if we have a policy abstraction in LedgerDirsManager, we can have a better > policy on how to pick up the entry log files for write. in this way, we can > balance the disk usage and I/O usage. > > I am seeing a trend of adding more and more configuration settings into > the bookies. some are strongly required. some doesn't seem to be really > needed. In this pull request, the configuration doesn't seem to be the > right solution that address the problems that you guys are listing. it > seems to be me a flag to mask the underneath problems and this flag will > most likely be used anymore when we have the correct solution in place. > > ? > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189#issuecomment-311713578>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAChrh-lox4aBr31It0IhIJUtinhtyH_ks5sIn6WgaJpZM4N4EFC> > . > -- Jvrao --- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
With regards, Apache Git Services
